So Retro!

[homer13j]

Attachment 101179

[Shaggy Hiker]

Edlin

Norton had some pretty low level memory stuff, if I remember right.

[Niya]

Yea it did but it was the low-level stuff it could do to disks that was really the prize. Bad sectors were a plague in those days so anything that could aid in recorvery of data was a God-sent and that usually means programs written expertly in assembly which could really get down and dirty.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Certainly one of the most used tools in that, and other, suites was the undelete routine.

[Niya]

Yea, I remember using that a couple times. Which reminds me, did you know that it was once possible to unformat a disk ?

[Shaggy Hiker]

I was going to mention that, but I couldn't quite remember whether it was true or just a delusion. There were two types of formats, the simple one really didn't do much at all. The quick format just deleted the address table that showed where each sector began and what was in it. The data on the disk was untouched, and could be easily recovered. I think the full-format was more severe in that it attempted to wipe the disk. I'm not sure how effective that was, though.

[Niya]

Even a normal full format didn't erase the actual data. You had to do an unconditional format using /u to wipe everything clean otherwise you could unformat the disk.

...I'm not sure how effective that was, though.

I remember testing this on a floppy once. It worked. Assuming you didn't write anything on the disk after a format, it recovers all of your files.

[sapator]

Similar to unformat you also had undelete for the files. I also remember a little trick that you could do to a 5 1/4 disk so you could turn it on the other side and write data. You just opened a hole on the inner rim, opposite of the first hole and you did a little cut in front, of the plastic of the disk. I messed quite a few disks trying to archive this ultimate goal , of course then came the 1.44 disks of today and spoiled all the fun ,let alone the first HD drives. I had my first 20MB HD and though that i have an unlimited flow of digital river in my hands!
Question. Did you use copy or xcopy? I switch to xcopy completely when i discovered it.

[Niya]

I used xcopy exclusively. Unlike copy, you could /s it and copy entire directories. I loved that about it and used it a lot to do backups.

[sapator]

Of course for disk backups the all powerful Diskcopy command was there!
You also shouldn't forget the /E on xcopy if you wanted empty directories to be included.
And then came the mouse and the dos shell. An abomination for DOS of course!
P.S. Ah i remember what i wanted to ask. Does any one of you ever seen an original DOS disk? I remember i only had one for the 3.3 version included in the PC i bought and if i remember correctly a 5.0 .

[Witis]

Also, why was it called a Disc/Disk Operating System? Where did the memory and C.P.U go???

[Niya]

Does any one of you ever seen an original DOS disk? I remember i only had one for the 3.3 version included in the PC i bought and if i remember correctly a 5.0 .

I've never actually seen an original. What we had were copies of copies. Who knows where the originals were. In those days there wasn't much in the way of copy protection.

Also, why was it called a Disc/Disk Operating System? Where did the memory and C.P.U go???

I'd guess because it boots from a disk.

[Witis]

I'd guess because it boots from a disk.

Perhaps they couldn't work it out either which is why the disk fell off???

[Jacob Roman]

Attachment 101179

Back when the PC could barely do those graphics, and back when people were still playing Nintendo, I was playing these off the Amiga 500 back in the 80s and early 90s. With some of the gorgeous graphics, music, and sound ever seen and heard at the time. This was before the Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo mind you, and even blows away the Atari ST. Its like playing Playstation, and the Amiga being the PS4 in comparison. And it did it at only 7 MHz, whereas the PC would require a CPU in the GHz range and a nice video card and sound card to do the same thing. Ironic in my opinion:

[Niya]

...whereas the PC would require a CPU in the GHz range and a nice video card and sound card to do the same thing. Ironic in my opinion:

You do mean to emulate it on the PC right ? Commander Keen 4 by ID Software had comparable graphics and great sound and it ran fine on a 486 which was still well before the GHz era.

[Jacob Roman]

You do mean to emulate it on the PC right ? Commander Keen 4 by ID Software had comparable graphics and great sound and it ran fine on a 486 which was still well before the GHz era.

No I don't mean to emulate it, I mean to do actually do it. The PC requires too much power to do the same thing, even to this day! Whereas the Amiga required just a tiny bit of power to be a powerhouse.

[Niya]

No I don't mean to emulate it, I mean to do actually do it. The PC requires too much power to do the same thing, even to this day! Whereas the Amiga required just a tiny bit of power to be a powerhouse.

I donno Jacob, I find this a very tough pill to swallow then again you know more about console hardware than I do since you can actually write emulators so you're the expert in this arena but as a user, I've always found the PC to be superior to whatever console was ruling in that era. Maybe this is just a perception on my part. Someone who digs around in the actual hardware would know the real truth.

Assuming what you're saying is indeed true, I think there is an explanation for this. If I was writing a game for say the Nintendo 64, then I would have a very specific set of hardware to work with. I can exploit the hardware to the fullest using all kinds of hardware specific tricks because I would be sure that the game would only be executed on that specific set of hardware. In contrast, you really don't know what kind of hardware your game would run on when you write games for the PC so you have to write more generalized code and avoid hardware specific optimizations so your game can run on as many PCs as possible. Perhaps this is why the Amiga games seemed so superior. They were written specifically for the Amiga hardware.

[Jacob Roman]

From what my father told me back then that he learned from the Amiga Club (yeah we use to go to the Amiga Club at least once a week at the Orlando Science Museum discussing anything Amiga and exchanging software 23-25 years ago), the Amiga was able to do all of this because the rest of the hardware wasn't extremely dependent on the CPU. Instead everything inside the Amiga had its own CPU for graphics and its own CPU for sound and music, and can handle multiple programs running seamlessly. It was also able to display 4096 colors at once using a technique called Hold And Modify (HAM). Which back then was unheard of! You can check out more information on the Amiga 500 over in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_500. The technical information specs had some good information on it.

Also a side note, we use to hook the Amiga upto a killer stereo system with awesome speakers, since it had some RCA audio out. The music and sound blew my freaking mind away. Please watch this video, and pretend you are in 1990:

[Niya]

You can check out more information on the Amiga 500 over in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_500. The technical information specs had some good information on it.

Hmm...The Amiga seems more like a PC than a console. In fact, for the purposes of any discussion involving PCs vs consoles, I think it would be best to classify the Amiga as a PC. Still though I can see where you're coming from. I'd never expect the games you posted the screenshots of to be able to run a 7 MHz CPU. That is quite impressive. SNES games are of comparable quality yet its processor runs at about 21 MHz according to Wikipedia.

[Jacob Roman]

What did ya think of the music and sound from the video I displayed?

[Niya]

What did ya think of the music and sound from the video I displayed?

Its really amazing. I have to admit, I didn't expect it to sound that good. This was in the NES era right ?

[EDIT]

I just noticed that the sound is stereophonic. Another surprise. I guess the 90s were a little more ahead that I give it credit for.

[Jacob Roman]

Yea the Amiga 500 had true stereo sound, another powerhouse feat. It was also one of the first systems to have 3D graphical games and programs. Although primitive at the time, it worked. 3D games such as Aquaventure, Ferrari Formula One, Space Cutter, etc.

[EDIT] Yes this was around the NES era. Turrican 2 was made in 1990 which was a superb sequel to the popular original Turrican. Turrican 2 is probably considered the greatest video game ever made, and it still holds up to this very day. I've been playing the Amiga 500 since 1987, back when I was 6 years old, and nothing came close until nealry a decade later. And its the very reason I got into programming to begin with.

[Niya]

Yea the Amiga 500 had true stereo sound, another powerhouse feat. It was also one of the first systems to have 3D graphical games and programs. Although primitive at the time, it worked. 3D games such as Aquaventure, Ferrari Formula One, Space Cutter, etc.

[EDIT] Yes this was around the NES era. Turrican 2 was made in 1990 which was a superb sequel to the popular original Turrican. Turrican 2 is probably considered the greatest video game ever made, and it still holds up to this very day. I've been playing the Amiga 500 since 1987, back when I was 6 years old, and nothing came close until nealry a decade later. And its the very reason I got into programming to begin with.

I really underestimated what the 90s had. My own experience doesn't go as far back as the Amiga and I can see that I really missed out there

[Jacob Roman]

To this day I feel VB6 is much much easier, even to learn programming in general.

You obviously never used both languages for years and fail to realize that one who is new to programming must not only learn their basics, but the entire .NET Framework on top of that. So yes VB6 is much easier because there is no .NET Framework to memorize. Its as close to regular BASIC as you are gonna get. Read all the posts before judging

I really underestimated what the 90s had. My own experience doesn't go as far back as the Amiga and I can see that I really missed out there

The 90s were some good times. If I could go back, I would relive those moments. Nickelodeon's SNICK, Cartoon Networks Toonami, MTV's Beavis and Butthead, the 16 bit wars with the SNES and Genesis, all the alternative rock music coming out, the PS vs N64, the Y2K bug fears, god I'm having a nostalgic boner just thinking about it.

[Witis]

Back when the PC could barely do those graphics, and back when people were still playing Nintendo, I was playing these off the Amiga 500 back in the 80s and early 90s.

Commodore International produced the Commodore 64 and the Amiga machines. I only remember the C64 which was release in 1982, and never tried the "rock lobster" (the Amiga 500) which was released in 1987.

[sapator]

I was lurking in the shadows back then with the PC, waiting patiently of when it will take the domination of Amiga. I must say that Amiga was in no way comparable to the PC back then.It was night and day.Although as a psychic and a pioneer ( :P ) i was on the PC side (although occasionally visited an Amiga club near by to play games) and always voted for those great adventure games. It wasn't until the VGA and Sound Blaster that we finally started to gain the ground of Amiga. Since i've played on many computers (not consoles) , starting from Spectrum and Commodore 64 and Amstrad 6128 (i wanted one like crazy but never made it to acquire it) through Atari ST, Amiga 500 - 1200 - 2000 and of course PC's i must say that Amiga was years ahead of it's time. I don't know how the heck they did it but they did it. On the other hand PC won and then unfortunately we had to live with Windows.
Lol DOS won Amiga, nia nia nia.

[Jacob Roman]

What I wanna know is what the hell is making the PC require so much power to do things when in reality it shouldnt take much power? Could the GPU be somewhat using the CPU, along with the sound card? Why should it take so much processing power when the Amiga proved the complete opposite, and showed there could be technology to use a tiny bit of processing power to overcome the odds and produce killer results. Wouldnt it be "Greener" in that regard, and even save power? I would love to see someone try to overcome that feat (looks at self)

[sapator]

What i've heard those years but never bother to check was that Amiga was actually using some kind of multi threading processor for the animation of game sprites. Meaning that p.e. one sprite movement was controlled individually from another spite movement while the PC was forced to use all the resources for one thread, meaning p.e. that one sprite movement was taking all the CPU processing and then moved to another sprite movement. So even though the PC had better CPU the whole thing had to pass through the CPU - BUS and graphic card and whatever intermediate before another process was to start.
One thing to notice was some awesome Assembly graph samples on PC presented at that time with super speed, running on low CPU's , it may well be that the PC could have pulled it of respectfully but it was very hard to do it.

[Witis]

On the other hand PC won and then unfortunately we had to live with Windows.

What's wrong with Windows?

[Jacob Roman]

What's wrong with Windows?

Question: Whats wrong with Windows?
Answer: Requires too much power to do the same thing as the Amiga 500, as well as requires a graphics library such as DirectX. Its also buggy, and sucks every 2 new OS's to come out. Requires too many drivers. Lack of plug and play support.

[FunkyDexter]

Lack of plug and play support.

I think that's a bit unfair. It's plug and play has always been much stronger than, say, Linux. It may not compete with devices that have "static" hardware (which don't need plug and play, of course) but as an OS to support user configurable hardware it's about the easiest to use.

[Witis]

Question: Whats wrong with Windows?
Answer: Requires too much power to do the same thing as the Amiga 500

You might be right to some extent, at least from a .net perspective, although I am not so sure if I agree if I match it up against XP!

, as well as requires a graphics library such as DirectX.

But it's X rated!

Its also buggy, and sucks every 2 new OS's to come out.

Ah, that is true; although can you name me a company that only produces hits and never misses, I bet you can't!

Requires too many drivers. Lack of plug and play support.

I dunno, XP is quite driver friendly, as is 7, although I am sure you can point out some exceptions.

[Niya]

I haven't have a driver problem with Windows 7 since it came out. And this goes not only for myself but for installs I did for other people who had radically different hardware combinations. Windows 7's driver support and plug and play support are truly superb.

[SJWhiteley]

To the original comment regarding a proliferation of VB6 questions verses .NET: there are thousands of web places to get true (and not so true) .NET help, whereas VB6 has very few dark corners of the bludgeoning internet.

While VB6 is going away, as already noted, there are a lot of legacy apps which need support. Any programmer who is familiar with VB6 and .NET wouldn't touch VB6 with a barge pole, unless said barge pole comes with lots of $100 bills stuck to it.

[SJWhiteley]

I used xcopy exclusively. Unlike copy, you could /s it and copy entire directories. I loved that about it and used it a lot to do backups.

Used? I still use it for backing up!

[Niya]

To the original comment regarding a proliferation of VB6 questions verses .NET: there are thousands of web places to get true (and not so true) .NET help, whereas VB6 has very few dark corners of the bludgeoning internet.

Very true. C# questions and answers are ubiquitous on the internet and since VB.Net can do exactly the same things as C#, C# help is effectively identical to helping someone using any other language that's compiled against the .Net Framework, including VB.Net.

[Niya]

Used? I still use it for backing up!

haha....Well I haven't used xcopy in years. Directory names are way too long now to make xcopy practical anymore and my backup needs these days are too complex for a simple batch xcopy.

[SJWhiteley]

To be honest, I hope VB6 would be supported on all future versions of Windows. There are just way too many apps written in it. I don't think MS would risk breaking the thousands of apps out there that depend on the VB6 runtime. For all the bad things that people like to say about MS, one thing that I find highly admirable about them is their commitment to backward compatibility. I love that about MS.

Today, I think this is their problem: you can only keep horses around - to keep the blacksmiths employed - so long before it becomes an obvious white elephant of an argument.

[Niya]

Well if the blacksmiths make up a majority then you can justify keeping the horses. The blacksmiths would become a minority in the future and then you can get rid of the horses.

One way or another, people will hit the limits of what's practical to do in VB6 when its compared against more modern languages and IDEs. Just look at all the cool stuff they added for VB.Net in VS2012 and you can bet they are going to add more and more language features and classes in the future. How long do you figure until it starts to make VB6 look like a toy language.

[SJWhiteley]

So, this thread hit me with a bit of nostalgia: I decided to dig out some old favorite PC games.

What a mistake. Some of them have a hard time running on Win7, but once that hurdle is over, I experienced the truism - Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.

I think it's best to remember how good it was and not how bad it is.